Squorlple@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 days agoOpinions on the internetlemmy.worldimagemessage-square31linkfedilinkarrow-up1264arrow-down111
arrow-up1253arrow-down1imageOpinions on the internetlemmy.worldSquorlple@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 days agomessage-square31linkfedilink
minus-squareDeme@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up17·11 days agoIt stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
minus-squareAurix@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·10 days agoWhat if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
minus-squareDeme@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·10 days agoThat’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
minus-squareRobotsLeftHand@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·10 days agoWelcome to social contract theory.
It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
That’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
Welcome to social contract theory.